BitterClingElitistGate

Last week Barack Obama violated fundamental political law. In a speech given to already smug San Franciscans, Barack denigrated voters in Pennsylvania which the following, deliciously repeatable sound bite:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In a mere three sentences he offended, with a jaw-droppingly precise combination of blatant and implied generalizations, an entire state a mere week before they held a crucial primary. The most offensive part of the statement can be debated ad infinitum. Maybe it was the (hopefully unintended) implication that religion is a negative force that serves as a crutch to the weak (a la Jesse Ventura). Maybe it was that he reinforced the stereotype that Pennsylvanians (and all working class states by association) are gun-toting psychopaths. Or maybe when he insinuated that they’re racist isolationalists.

I don’t personally believe Obama intended any of these negative connotations; call me delusional or hopelessly naïve (or how about hypocritical – would I show such grace towards Clinton or McCain? Hard to say). He made the mistake of forgetting his role as Barack Obama, public official in the spotlight of a vigilant media, and slipping into his role as Professor Obama. He’s done it before (which explains his largely unsuccessful history on the debate circuit) and will undoubtedly do it again. In this instance, he was lecturing as a detached, disinterested anthropologist assessing the struggles of a beleaguered people. He was speaking as if they were a historical case study, long ago undone by economic forces and internal strife. This approach has worked when he has spoken of the African American community, but there is a major difference: his identity is linked with the black community, and when he offers assessments of the tribulations they face he speaks as an insider. When he philosophizes on rural Pennsylvania, he becomes an outsider judging their values and lifestyle (never mind that he is just as much Kansan as he is Kenyan).

But in the end, Barack Obama was merely being honest. He was giving his Harvard educated opinion of an important voting bloc. Unfortunately, in our leaders we rarely desire honesty. We want to be placated, justified. We want leaders to have a beer with us while they tell us who to blame. We want leaders to suffer with us as members of the proletariat, not leaders who deign to step in front and (image that) lead.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on perspective), Barack’s blunder had seemingly minimal effect on the Pennsylvania voters (the primary went largely as predicted, with Clinton riding a wave of old people and uneducated people to a 55% to 45% victory).

The real story here is that Obama’s speech unmasked him as (spoiler alert!) somewhat of an elitist.

And I say: Of course he is. What of it?

All presidential candidates are, by necessity of the position they put themselves in, elitists. They need to believe that they know what’s best for you and I, that they understand our interests better than we do (whether they actually do or not is another issue). They have spent years in high government having their egos inflated by pushy lobbyists and spineless yes-men. Did you know that Senators don’t even pay for postage? Don’t get me started on the postal service, an obsolete, archaic organization that should be done away with, but still, they don’t pay for postage! How bourgeoisie is that? These people are pomp-machines kept afloat on delusions of grandeur. As much as I hate to be the one to shatter any perceptions of the politician-next-door: they think that they’re better than you.

What’s sad is not that our politicians are elitists who think we’re dumb and need to be pandered to. The real tragedy is that (warning: generalization) we ARE dumb and DO need to be pandered to. So Hillary Clinton shot a gun once as a child and Barack Obama spent some time living in Kansas and John McCain served in the Navy. Does this really qualify any one of them as an “everyman?” Do we imagine they can connect with the average American because they go to church sometimes (when the media is present) or have visited a farm in Iowa or because they held a baby in the projects on a press junket and can honestly say that they went slumming once too?

Look at the numbers: McCain’s wealth is somewhere in the $25 million range, and this doesn’t include his wife’s estimated $100 million fortune. The Clintons pulled in $20 million in 2007, and have an accumulated estate of $50 million. The Obamas, poverty stricken by comparison, made $4 million in 2007 alone. These people will never understand what it means to live without medical insurance or worry about paying $4 a gallon for gas. Yet we allow them to commiserate with us.

We’re fools for buying into it time and again. The biggest knock on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 was perceived elitism. Their values were out of touch with America. They were incapable of speaking to the masses. Never mind that Bush was an oil-baby and Yale graduate. His muddled thinking and tenuous grasp of the English language were proof enough that he was our buddy, our pal.

This is the game the Republicans understand so much better than the Democrats. They recognize that we don’t want a well-spoken, privately warm but publicly unapproachable aristocrat. No, we want someone who will show us where to point the finger, someone who will arouse our greatest fears, someone who will get our blood boiling.

As a result, the Republican Party has hijacked the vote of a group of people that they (by all reasonable measures) despise. The Republicans are the elitists offering tax breaks to the uber-wealthy and asylum to major corporations, denying health care to the masses, exporting jobs, throwing our hard-earned money at unwinnable wars. Yet they dominate the southern blue-collar belt. They oppress, and the people love them for it.

I liked Cassel’s summation in last week’s post: “It's not that Republicanism or Conservatism is such a horrible ideology. It's that those who represent this ideology (the current admin.) have failed miserably to manifest the foundations of the politically Conservative ideal that it is supposed to stand for!” Speaking personally, the liberal revolution I underwent over the course of several years could be fairly judged as reactionary. I was simply tired of the Republicans so smugly taking my vote (along with the votes of my family, friends, etc.) for granted while doing everything in their power to deprive me of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I by no means believe the Democratic Party has all the answers. They promise new programs without offering any plan on how they’re going to pay for them, showing themselves to be either A) delusional or B) lying, pandering snakes. They see American opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, so they threaten to immediately withdraw our troops with nary a thought to global consequences. They show their extreme, inexplicable hypocrisy by decrying capital punishment while supporting the termination of unborn children. How can you claim injustice when a psychopathic criminal is executed, yet be perfectly comfortable “executing” an unborn baby that has not even had a chance to sully its innocence? I’m not advocating a stance on either issue; I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.

I freely admit these criticisms; now let’s admit that the Republican Party is not what it claims to be. If they stand for less government, why do they push so hard to regulate abortion and homosexual marriage? (again, not espousing a position one way or the other on the issues; I’m just saying it’s, once again, extremely hypocritical) They say they’re about conservative spending, but let’s talk about the costs of multiple wars and pork-barrel projects (Ted Stevens’ “Road to Nowhere” and Don Young’s “Coconut Road” to name two recent examples). And as with the democrats, they’re stance on the sanctity of life is wildly inconsistent.

Cassel suggests that “The right is simply not working, so let’s try the left.” But what if that’s not good enough? Why will politics as usual be any better?

So I propose a third party. A party that is actually in touch with American values and concerns, a party that follows a consistent ideology and works tirelessly to realize a vision of global peace, prosperity and enlightenment. I submit to you, dear readers, the Zizzle-Zotian United People's Party (ZZUPP).

As the first order of business, I’d like to announce my candidacy to become the President of the United States of America. Unfortunately, there’s some silly, arbitrary rule that I need to be 35 to become president, so I’ll spend the next 12 years launching ruthless smear campaigns against every American born man, woman and child. By the time 2020 rolls around, I’ll be the only viable candidate.

Applications for Vice President will be taken immediately.

Thanks for reading

Don’t Get Me Wrong, Kobe Bryant’s Still a Boob: Thoughts on the NBA

In recent weeks we’ve all read articles ad nauseam by basketball analysts, pundits, bloggers, personalities (all self-proclaimed “experts”) on the resurgence of the NBA, due in large part to the unpredictably of the Western Conference playoff push. Sports writers have latched onto the punny potential of the western theme with stories titled “The Wild Wild West” and “How the West Was Won.” Casual fans have jumped on the bandwagon, donning replica jerseys and foam figures as their home teams battle for a spot amongst the elite. And, I must admit, after going through several years of finding the prospect of watching a televised, regular season game completely unpalatable, I have been drawn into the excitement. That’s right, I’m once again a fan of the NBA.

It’s unfortunate that this is the first season in my NBA memory in which star players are giving their top efforts on a daily basis, but I’m thankful for the show. The offseason trades by the Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, which essentially restructured the league by establishing a legitimate powerhouse in the East, has spurred a veritable arms race by competitive teams to acquire top-flight talent.

In the East this has resulted in a magnificent class separation between the haves (Celtics, Pistons) and the have nots (pretty much everyone else). The top two teams are also the top teams in the entire NBA (the Celtics and Pistons currently have the best records), while at least two teams below .500 will make the playoffs. The lowly Hawks, hopeless underachievers and perennial losers, have earned themselves the noble task of being manhandled by KG and the Irish in the first round. The Pacers are 11 games below being OK, and consider the season a success. To summarize, the good teams are very good, and the bad teams are just gross.

But in the West we have ourselves a dogfight (don’t tell Michael Vick). The migration of superstars (Pao Gasol, Shaq, Jason Kidd*, Kyle Korver…fine, not a superstar, but look at the numbers and you’ll see he pushed the Jazz from good to great), coupled with the maturation of up-and-comers (Chris Paul, Deron Williams, David West) has created an atmosphere of super-competitive superstars.

Every playoff team is a likely 50 game winner. The Warriors, last year’s Cinderellas, won’t even make the big show despite a record that would put them ahead of King James and the Cavs for the fourth seed in the East. Every game is war. One win or one loss completely redefines the playoff picture.

Pay attention, because never again will you see a rejuvenated Shaq diving into the stands for a loose ball. Never again will you hear both Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony talk about the game in terms of “we” instead of the preferred “I.” And take advantage now, because never again will you see Tracy McGrady play defense.

This is a season ripe with bewilderments. How did the ragtag Rockets win 22 straight games AFTER losing superstar Yao Ming to a season ending injury? How did the Hornets jump from an obscurity with literally no fan base to the force that will save New Orleans? How are the Heat so bad? (OK, so this one’s easy: they’re purposely tanking to secure the number one draft pick. A middle lineup of Wade at shooting guard, Marion at small forward, and Michael Beasley at power forward will be fierce, and B-Eazy will look good in black and red.)

Or perhaps the greatest mystery of all: How did Kobe Bryant morph from disgruntled child demanding a trade to messiah demanding MVP consideration? It fills me with an indescribable sadness that he’s my favorite player to watch, for both his athletic skill and his competitive nature, and yet he’s such a jackass. It’s a dichotomy: the Lakers have a real shot at becoming NBA champions, and Kobe has led them there. This makes him the MVP. On the other hand: he nearly destroyed the team in the offseason, ridiculed his teammates on a national stage, and put his heart into the game only after the Lakers started winning. Not behavior you’d expect, or would want, out of an MVP.

This year four players have a legit claim to the award. Chris Paul is a floor general solely responsible for the success of the Hornets (and is indisputably the best PG in the league). Lebron James has an improbable stat line (impossible for mere mortals) and will once again carry a team of bottom-feeders into the playoffs. Kevin Garnett (though this is not his best year statistically) has managed to convince Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and the rest of the Celts that defense IS important. Whatever the results, the battle has been a pleasure to watch.

On a side note, I’ve also enjoyed watching the sinking of the SS Timberwolves. They’ve finally escaped the clutches of mediocrity and find themselves in a hard fought contest for the toilet bowl. It’s refreshing.

* A disclaimer about Jason Kidd: I hated everything about this trade. It was a huge downgrade for the Mavs, who gave up a young playmaker that could create for himself and score in the lane (a rare skill in Dallas) in exchange for an egomaniac that shoots 30% from the field, averages about four turnovers a game, and is expecting his first social security check in the mail any day. On the other hand, it fills me with great joy when I look at the Dallas boxscore and see this stat line: 7 points on 2-11 shooting, 6 assists, 5 rebounds, 5 turnovers. Ha.

Thanks for reading.

PS I’m sure many of you were expecting a reaction to the Barack Obama “bitter” explosion. To be perfectly honest, I’m not yet certain what to say. Give me some time to percolate, and I’m sure I’ll devise a perfectly reasonable deconstruction of Obama’s comments. He’s come too far to commit political suicide just as a Hillary comeback seemed impossible. Gulp…

PPS A “reaction” post has gone from likely to pending to imminent, and it may (or may not) be a doozy. Just call me the spin doctor and sign me up for a think tank.

Hillary Clinton Eats Baby; Does Other Bad Stuff Too

A shocking photograph taken over the weekend and released late Monday has caught Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the act of devouring a still living, too cute baby, hat and all. The picture, taken at a Pennsylvania family restaurant as Clinton was campaigning across the state, confirms long-held suspicions that not only is she a terrible candidate, but is, in fact, a monster (as has been alleged by former Obama advisor Samantha Power) and a baby-eater.

Reports indicate that Clinton and her team stopped at a busy Big Al’s Family Diner Saturday afternoon for a late lunch. When the complimentary bread had been consumed and the harried waitress was slow to refill the basket, the noticeably hungry Clinton snatched the baby from his screaming mother’s arms and bit the precious child’s head off even as the boy’s distraught father attempted to rescue his son from the junior senator’s surprisingly strong grip. Horrified onlookers rushed from the scene in a frenzied panic, many slipping on the way out in a large pool of accumulated blood and vomit as several patrons lost their barely digested lunches.

Shortly after swallowing the last morsel of baby, Clinton perceived the hubbub engulfing Big Al’s Family Diner and grew visibly embarrassed as she realized the magnitude of her error. Quickly regaining her composer, Clinton stood and offered the few remaining diners a ghastly, blood stained smile: “Ladies and gentlemen, we need a leader who is ready on day one. A leader who is strong and tough and will eat a baby if that’s what’s necessary to quell her hunger. I am that candidate. Yes I am! Yes I am!” Clinton continued the chant as an aide quickly escorted her out of the restaurant to a waiting vehicle.

In an interview later that day, the boy’s mother stated: “Until today my husband and I were undecided. Yes Clinton has lied, stolen and cheated, but today she ate my baby, and that is unforgivable.”

This latest gaff comes on the heels of a scandal involving (now former) chief strategist Mark Penn and a trade agreement with Colombia, which he lobbied on behalf of. Details of the agreement are still sketchy, but it can only be assumed that he was acting as an intermediary between American cocaine dealers and Colombian drug lords, offering the Clinton campaign fund as a laundering service. Penn has stepped down as a result of the incident, but will continue to oversee Clinton’s “Procurement of Shady ‘Donations’ Committee.”

In a related story, an insider in Clinton’s camp has accused Barack Obama of “waving to a street vendor known to have sold fresh produce to a guy whose wife is the housekeeper of the brother of a well-known Al Qaeda operative.” The incident, reportedly occurring during Obama’s brief stint in Indonesia as a child, could not be confirmed by secondary sources, but the Clinton staffer cites Obama’s “alarming fondness for fresh produce” as conclusive evidence.

On the Republican side, John McCain, bored by months of uncontested campaigning, has apparently sought to engage in a ruthless smear campaign against John McCain. When early attempts to display complete ignorance concerning Middle Eastern foreign policy (he still doesn’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni…maybe he should read this: http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/04/very-brief-history-of-middle-east.html) proved too subtle for the average American voter, McCain lowered his aim to a more common denominator by unleashing a barrage of “John McCain is so old…” jokes.

Thanks for reading.

So Tired...

Sorry I haven’t responded to any comments yet. I’ve been out of town for a while, and haven’t checked in for some time.

Chris, I agree that you should definitely reply to old posts. I guess there are three ways to do it. One option is to reply on the original post, and like P Corcs said just let us know so people will go back and look. Another option is to let us know which post specifically you want to talk about again, then write your comments in the most recent post (since this is the one people will most likely be checking). Or you could send me your comments and I can add them as an entirely new post.

Like I said, I’ve been gone for a while and now I have some catching up to do, so whether or not there will be a post this week remains to be seen. Stay tuned…

Boycotting Beijing

NOTE: I'm posting a day early because those bastards over at Slate Magazine just put out a story on the same topic, and I want it to be known that they're ripping me off (I wrote this over the weekend). I'm not sure how they hacked in to my computer, but I'll get to the bottom of this. Enjoy!


The recent turmoil in Tibet has brought to the forefront, yet again, China’s abysmal record on human rights and its desperation to cover up said record. Following days of protest and civil unrest over Tibetan autonomy, the Chinese government hurriedly tidied up the messy affair, clearing streets of debris and downplaying reports that over 80 civilians had been killed by Chinese forces (their official report is 16). And to a large extent, their public relations efforts seem to be working (they’ve been removed from the United States’ top ten list for most egregious human rights violators).

This in itself is a sickening display of political pandering. It’s clear that America, and the international community as a whole, tip-toes around China for fear of awakening the beast. They have developed into an economic powerhouse with intimidating military might. From a sheer numbers standpoint, it seems essential that our governments remain on good terms, and for this reason we choose to ignore the repressive regime of Hu Jintao.

What’s more despicable is we are providing this government with our tacit approval by allowing them to host the 2008 summer Olympics. This international event is intended to serve as a display of global goodwill, connectedness, humanity and equality. By allowing China to host the games, and not uttering a word in protest, we have turned them into a PR farce made possible by China’s deeply disturbing habit of employing brutal tactics to silence dissent.

Jintao and his cronies can imprison every journalist, murder every protestor, and the fact remains that the Chinese government represses and/or exploits citizens in the name of progress, illegally detains vocal opponents and crushes potential uprisings with an iron fist. They fund tyrants, provide genocidal governments with advanced weaponry and implicit approval (most notably in Sudan) and are indignant of international pressure to change these practices, let alone intervene.

We have at our fingertips a unique opportunity to tighten the screws on the Chinese. Their international awareness is unprecedentedly sensitive, and it is crucial to this still developing country that the world takes them seriously. If we were to take the lead and even hint at an Olympic boycott, the global community would follow and force the Chinese to make their first ever good-hearted effort to improve their policies on human rights.

To start, they need to play hardball with Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government. If China pulled its economic support the Sudanese government would crumble. There would be no more supplies (military or otherwise) to be funneled to the government-supported Janjaweed militias. Al-Bashir knows this, and would fold at the suggestion. In addition, China should be required to send peacekeeping forces to drive the militias from Darfur. Next, China must free imprisoned dissidents and grant greater freedom to journalists. For a government to be legitimate, the people must have access to at least a rudimentary picture of its practices. Finally, China should allow the Dalai Lama to return from exile and should grant Tibet greater autonomy.

We have the power to make this happen with a simple phone call: “Good morning, President Jintao. Take human rights seriously, or we boycott.”

But, as usual, we’re far too short-sighted for such a proposition. For the boycott to work the threat must be real; we must be ready and willing to pull our athletes out of the games, to bar our television stations from airing any portion of them, to prevent any of our journalists from reporting results. But for economic reasons our threat to boycott would be a bluff, and if China called us on it the result would be disastrous.

So, as usual, we’re behind the game. A number of prominent figures have already either officially boycotted or hinted at boycotting the games. Steven Spielberg, originally slated to serve as art director for the opening ceremony, has backed out, saying that he could not in good conscience support the Chinese Olympics. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has urged the European Union to consider boycotting at least the opening ceremony (though in my opinion this would serve solely as a publicity stunt. We must be willing to boycott the games in their entirety). Several international groups reportedly have plans to protest at various sections of the torch lighting ceremony.

In the span of a lifetime, the opportunities to truly stand against injustice and to better the world for future generations are few and far between. This is one of them. And think, it would require no bloodshed, no armed conflict. All it would take would be a unified international voice shouting “we don’t approve of your oppressive government, and we won’t participate in the charade.” True passive resistance.

On the other hand, let’s review America’s record on human rights. We, too, fund governments that have horrifying habits of repressing citizens (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and genocidal madmen (Saddam Hussein in the ‘80s). We, too, illegally detain citizens (think Guantanamo), spy on citizens (the Patriot Act), and attempt to silence opponents (look at the Scooter Libby scandal).

We didn’t put up too much of a fuss when Nazi Germany hosted the summer Olympics in 1936, which makes me suspect that, despite all of our high-minded rhetoric and efforts to play the global moral authority, we just don’t give a shit.

So maybe an American protest would just be a grandiose display of our own hypocrisy.

You decide for yourself, but Zizzle-Zot,etc. officially boycotts.

Thanks for reading

Oh The Madness!

Listen closely, ladies and gents, and one can already hear the cries of victory and defeat, celebration and heartbreak, heroes and inevitable zeroes. This is the season of competitions settled in waning seconds, legends made in defining moments, upsets, cinderellas, sleepers, programs built or destroyed, myths made reality, dreams shattered.

This is March Madness

I dedicate this post to the spirit of the greatest sporting event of the year. Let’s talk about who we love, who we hate. Which team will make a surprise run into the elite eight? Which team is primed to be picked off in the early rounds? And keep in mind that this is largely speculation, which is the beauty of March Madness. Any one of these teams can hit a hot streak and ride it all the way to the Final Four in San Antonio. Likewise, a powerhouse by conventional wisdom could find themselves with an injured star, or unable to deal with an unanticipated full court press, or unable to cope with a hostile crowd, and turn out to be the flop of the tourney. Nobody knows. I’m as much a March Madness authority as those talking heads on ESPN. We all are. Eat it, Dick Vitale.

East Regional

Zot’s Favorites: The East is North Carolina’s to win or lose. They stay in their home state until the final four, where they will be enthusiastically supported by most of the North Carolina student body. It’s tough to root against consensus Player of the Year Tyler Hansbrough. Not only is he significantly stronger and smarter than any defender he faces (not to mention surprisingly athletic. Did anyone else see him dunk on 7-foot-7 Kenny George of UNC-Asheville?), he has the biggest heart of any player in recent memory. Note that when star PG Ty Lawson injured his ankle and sat out seven games, Hansbrough played out of his mind and willed the Tar Heels to a 6-1 record (despite lacking a feasible PG option).

Other Goodies: Overall, the East Regional seems designed to clear the way for North Carolina to mosey into the Final Four (which is precisely why they’ll probably lose). The problem here is consistency. There are some teams that can be very good. Tennessee, if they’re hot, will dominate. But if they’re cold, they’ll have trouble winning (more on this later). For a good chunk of the season Indiana was a great team, but they’ve shown a tendency to choke on the big stage (and they lost to the Gophers in the Big 10 tourney). I like Notre Dame to get into the Sweet Sixteen. They can put up big numbers and I’ve seen some impressive wins from them this season, but they would need an otherworldly effort from Luke Harangody (a lot to ask considering he’ll most likely be covered by Hansbrough) to get past UNC.

Houston, We Have a Problem: Watch out for Tennessee. If they’re on, they could make a bracket or two. They can score like madmen, are surprisingly resourceful and scrappy (and have shown themselves to be capable of rising to the occasion when they beat then #1 Memphis), and if they’re shooting well…yikes (their offense is designed to shoot in the first seven seconds of the shot clock). On the other hand, they live and die with the 3-ball. Come tournament time, I hate teams that need to be shooting well from distance to win. Three of their starters are 6-2, and the tallest guy in their 7 or 8-man rotation is 6-9. What happens if they’re shooting poorly?

Sleeper: South Alabama gets to play their first two games close to home (Birmingham), have a couple of solid guards, and thrive in an up-tempo setting (which should help them against Tennessee in the second round). But will they be able to keep up with Tennessee’s star power?

Midwest regional

Zot’s Favorites: The Wisconsin Badgers play fundamental basketball, solid defense, and completely lack star power. I love them for it. They have the experience and scrappiness to keep any game close, will squeak past Georgetown when Hibbert inevitably finds himself in foul trouble, and do the same to Kansas when they inevitably self-destruct. They don’t rely on any one player to have a huge game to win, making them greater than the sum of their parts. They will have trouble if any of their opponents are able get out and run on them, as this lack of stardom means they may have trouble keeping up in a score-fest.

Other Goodies: Clemson looked strong in two games against the Tar Heels (one I watched in its entirety, the other I saw highlights) losing both in overtime. Buyer beware: their free throw shooting is a major liability.

Houston, We Have a Problem: I’ll grant that this isn’t really fare considering they aren’t necessarily a top seed, but USC has been getting a lot of hype in recent days, and I’d like to be the first to dispel any rumors that they might get past the second round. Big man Taj Gibson is their cornerstone and sole inside presence, but seems to find himself watching many games from the bench after early foul trouble. Freshman phenom OJ Mayo is almost as over-hyped as Indiana star Eric Gordon. Folks, when you shoot 5 for 23 from the field and 10 for 17 from the charity stripe, it wasn’t a good game. I don’t really care that you scored 20 points. It was a bad game.

Sleeper: I like Davidson. Sophomore guard Stephen Curry (son of former NBA player Dell Curry) is a bonafide star who can score at will. If he’s hot there’s no reason he can’t put up 50. Plus, they’ve won 22 straight games. That’s not easy.

South Regional

Zot’s Favorites: Memphis lost one game in the regular season to a very good Tennessee team that played very well. Joey Dorsey was in foul trouble early. Dozier had his head up his ass till late in the second half. Douglas-Roberts had an off game. Now everyone’s talking about Memphis like they’re a weak one seed. Bullspit. I’ll take the Memphis starting 5 over any other starting 5 in the game. Dorsey is a strong, mean and dominant enforcer on the inside, one capable of locking down any big man in the game (I’m looking at you, Kevin Love). Rose is an explosive and powerful PG that will either out-run or out-muscle the opposition. Douglas-Roberts is a pure scorer and underrated defender. Look at what this team did in the regular season. They didn’t just win a lot of games. They destroyed and embarrassed the competition. I’d be hard pressed to pick any other team to win the whole thing.

Other Goodies: I’ll never understand why Memphis and North Carolina, easily the top two teams during the season, have to deal with Texas and Tennessee as their number twos while Kansas gets an over-hyped, offensively incompetent Georgetown and UCLA (who must be in bed with the bracketologists) gets to face the prep school masquerading as Duke (more on them to come). Texas is a giant killer, having beaten both Kansas and UCLA, and Tennessee got screwed out of a one seed. Texas’ DJ Augustin is one of the top guards in the country and if they do face Memphis it will be in Houston. On the other hand, I believe Rose will absolutely lock Augustin down, and Texas loves the 3. We all know how I feel about that.

Houston, We Have a Problem: This is a great region for teams that have found their way into my doghouse. Oregon refuses to play defense and shouldn’t be in the tourney at all, let alone have a nine seed. I always bet against Pittsburgh, though I can’t explain why. I just don’t like them. Same rule applies for Michigan State, and this year’s squad is particularly schizophrenic. I watched a game where they scored 36 points. That’s bad.

Sleeper: I like both 13 seed Oral Roberts and 12 seed Temple. It helps that they’re matched up against my problem teams in the in the first round and could realistically pull off an upset, depending on which Pitt and Michigan St. teams show up to play. Temple has won seven straight, and Oral Roberts is an athletic bunch.

West Regional

Zot’s Favorites: As I’ve mentioned, UCLA must have the selection committee in its front pocket, because on paper their road to the Final Four couldn’t get much easier. Could it be that three out of four number one seeds make it to San Antonio?

Other Goodies: Xavier is an extremely well balanced team that loves shootouts. They match up favorably with most of the opposition, and their first real test won’t come until they face UCLA in the Elite Eight.

Houston, We Have a Problem: I hate hate hate this Duke team. They have no inside presence whatsoever, relying solely on the 3. I hope it’s clear by now how I feel about that. These are the types of people who would pull up outside the arc when they have a 3 on 1 fast break, a la Troy Hudson. Yes, they did beat North Carolina, but Lawson was out at the time and his replacement, Thomas, was still new to the job. They followed it up with a series of uninspiring losses to unranked teams. The fact that Duke is perpetually over ranked is the most blatant representation of committee bias.

Sleeper: Watch out for BYU and Purdue. BYU is athletic and can shoot. If they’re hot they’re dangerous. Purdue is young and inexperienced, but has beaten some big time schools (swept Wisconsin, beat Louiseville).


Several of the people reading this blog are participating in a pool on Yahoo sports. If you look closely, you’ll notice that my picks here don’t always line up with the picks I actually made in my bracket.

Explanation: This is a guessing game. Some knowledge of college basketball may be helpful, but more often than not the winner of a pool will be a computer programmer who spends his free time playing World of Warcraft. I’m in a couple of different pools, and in case I’m completely off base, I’ve gone to great lengths to make my brackets as varied as possible.

Let the games begin.

Thanks for reading.

Patience, Young Padawans

My apologies, but you’ll have to wait until tomorrow for this week’s post. I’ve done a breakdown of March Madness, and realized after finishing that if I were to post what I’d written, I’d be giving you noobs the answer key to this year’s bracket. Not gonna happen. Brackets are due tomorrow morning, and that’s when I’ll reveal the winners.

On a couple of side notes:

If you’ve been watching economic news, it looks like the Federal Reserve might self destruct, saving me a lot of time and effort. If their bailout for financial institutions backfires (ie fails to restore investor confidence) and markets continue to crumble, they will find themselves increasingly owned by foreign interests and their international reputation will erode to the point of no return. Since our financial systems are largely based on speculation (which is based on some inexplicable concoction of arrogance, inevitability and blind faith), a loss of trust means the downfall of the Federal Reserve.

I’m not an economist, nothing in the world is less interesting to me than money (well… maybe technical writing) and numbers give me a headache, so if the Fed were to go up in a cash fed blaze of its own making, sparked by the ember of imagined invincibility, I would be the first to rejoice.

K-Han, I caught Obama’s speech this morning. Brilliant. This is what he does best, and he once again demonstrated his understanding of complex issues with intelligence and empathy.

You’ll hear from me again tomorrow. Good luck on those brackets!

Thanks for reading.